DOCSLIB.ORG

Obergefell V. Hodges / Background ••

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Obergefell V. Hodges / Background •• LandmarkCases.org Obergefell v. Hodges / Background Reading •• Obergefell v. Hodges / Background •• The first case on same-sex marriage that made it to the Supreme Court was Baker v. Nelson in 1971. A same-sex couple in Minnesota applied for a marriage license and were denied by the county clerk. The U.S. Supreme Court dismissed the appeal because the Court at that time did not think that there was even a serious argument to be made that the 14th Amendment protects same-sex marriage. While the decision did not itself ban same-sex marriage, it sent a message to states that they could ban same-sex marriage without violating the Constitution. For the next couple of decades, the progress for marriage equality was uneven, but activists kept fighting for marriage equality. This was not only for same-sex couples to be equal to straight couples, but also so same-sex couples could obtain the legal benefits to marriage that were available to straight couples. For example, married couples who file taxes jointly tend to pay less than two people who file separately. Certain important medical decisions can also only be made by a spouse when a patient is seriously injured or ill. In some states, marriage is a requirement for adopting a child. In 1973, Maryland became the first state to clearly define marriage as between one man and one woman, and others followed. In 1989, San Francisco became the first government to allow same-sex couples to enter into what they called “domestic partnerships,” in which two people lived in the same home were not married. Domestic partnerships had some, but not all, of the benefits of marriage. In 1993, the Supreme Court of the State of Hawaii ruled that the state’s ban on same-sex marriage violated the state’s equal protection clause. However, the country was still divided. In 1996, Congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). DOMA defined marriage, at least in the eyes of the federal government, as between one man and one woman and denied same-sex couples the federal benefits associated with marriage such as Social Security survivor benefits, joint filing of taxes, and access to spouses’ health insurance. DOMA also allowed states to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages that were performed in another states. DOMA only applied to the federal government, however, and Massachusetts became the first state to legalize same-sex marriage in 2003. It was followed by several other states, mostly in the Northeast. At the same time, many states passed constitutional amendments that specifically outlawed same-sex marriage. Then in 2013, in its decision in United States v. Windsor, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down DOMA as unconstitutional. While this did not automatically make same-sex marriage legal in states that had banned it, same-sex couples married in states where it was legal could receive federal benefits denied under DOMA. In July 2013, Jim Obergefell married his terminally ill partner, John Arthur. They married in Maryland because their home state of Ohio did not allow same-sex marriage. Arthur died shortly after the marriage ceremony, and Obergefell wanted his name on Arthur’s death certificate as his © 2020 Street Law, Inc. Last updated: 07/02/2020 LandmarkCases.org Obergefell v. Hodges / Background Reading •• legal spouse. When officials in Ohio refused to recognize their marriage as valid, Obergefell sued and won in the district court. The Ohio government challenged this decision to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, which overturned the lower court and ruled in favor of Ohio. Obergefell asked the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the case, and it agreed to do so. While Obergefell’s case was moving through the court, three other similar cases were going through the courts in Kentucky, Michigan, and Tennessee. In the three other cases, the petitioners were same-sex couples who either wanted to get married in their state but were unable to because of a state law or constitutional amendment, or they were same-sex couples who were married lawfully in another state and wanted their home state to recognize that marriage as valid. However, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals also ruled in favor of upholding those states’ same-sex marriage bans. Because the cases all involved the same constitutional issue, the Supreme Court consolidated all four cases into the Obergefell case to be argued together. Obergefell and the other petitioners argued that the marriage bans violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment which states, “No state shall … deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” The Equal Protection Clause requires states to apply laws equally to all people. Also involved was the Full Faith and Credit Clause in Article IV of the U.S. Constitution, which states in part, “Full faith and credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State.” This means states must treat government actions in other states as being valid in their own state. The petitioners argued that this required states to recognize same-sex marriages legally licensed in another state even if that state itself forbid same-sex marriage. The Supreme Court considered two questions: Does the 14th Amendment require a state to license same-sex marriages? Does the 14th Amendment require a state to recognize a same-sex marriage that was lawfully licensed out-of-state? Questions to Consider 1. Explain why, from a legal standpoint, same-sex couples would want the right to marry. 2. Given that many Americans get married in states other than where they live, should states be allowed to have different laws regarding marriage? Why or why not? © 2020 Street Law, Inc. 2 LandmarkCases.org Obergefell v. Hodges / Background Reading •• 3. Define the Equal Protection Clause and explain how it relates to Obergefell v. Hodges. 4. If you were a justice on the Supreme Court, how would you rule in this case and why? © 2020 Street Law, Inc. 3 .
Load more

Recommended publications
  • A Conservative Defense of Romer V. Evans Dale Carpenter University of Minnesota Law School
    Indiana Law Journal Volume 76 | Issue 2 Article 4 Spring 2001 A Conservative Defense of Romer v. Evans Dale Carpenter University of Minnesota Law School Follow this and additional works at: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/ilj Part of the Constitutional Law Commons, Sexuality and the Law Commons, and the State and Local Government Law Commons Recommended Citation Carpenter, Dale (2001) "A Conservative Defense of Romer v. Evans," Indiana Law Journal: Vol. 76: Iss. 2, Article 4. Available at: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/ilj/vol76/iss2/4 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law School Journals at Digital Repository @ Maurer Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Indiana Law Journal by an authorized administrator of Digital Repository @ Maurer Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. A Conservative Defense of Romer v. Evanst DALE CARPENTER" INTRODUCTION A conservative defense ofRomer v. Evans?' How could a conservative defend the U.S. Supreme Court's decision to strike down a Colorado state constitutional amendment repealing and prohibiting local gay civil rights laws? Wasn't the decision an unprincipled departure from the intentions of the Framers, the language of the Constitution, and the traditions of the nation? Wasn't it, in short, the very archetype of liberal judicial activism abhorred by conservatives? Many conservatives, including conservative legal scholars, have apparently thought so. Evans has been blasted in the conservative opinion pages of the NationalReview2 and the Weekly Standard,3 among many other popular-press outlets.4 Conservative legal scholars have launched a frontal assault on Evans, starting with an attack in the HarvardJournal ofLaw & PublicPolicy.
    [Show full text]
  • Ideas Discussed, Strategies Presented at 8Th Calhoun County Super Council
    ¢ THE CALHOUN-LIBERTY 50 includes tax BHS OURNAL Prom CLJNews.com W ednesday Office located in Bristol, FL PAGE 16 J MARCH 27, 2013 Vol. 33, No. 13 ‘Behind the Scenes’ show this Sunday to focus on ‘FINDING BIGFOOT’ episode set in this area by Teresa Eubanks, Journal Editor It may be a few months before the Florida epi- sode of “Finding Big- foot” filmed here re- cently will air, but some of the background work done to create the show will be featured on Sun- day night’s “Finding Calhoun County’s elected officials take part in last week’s Super Council meeting in Blountstown. TERESA EUBANKS PHOTOS Bigfoot; Untold Sto- ries,” at 9 p.m. (ET) on Animal Planet. Ideas discussed, strategies presented While the “Finding Bigfoot” folks were film- ing their show at Torreya State Park, another crew at 8th Calhoun County Super Council was following them around to document how by Teresa Eubanks, Journal Editor of the Apalachicola River, thanks to the efforts of they put together the County commissioners, school board members, the Apalachicola Maritime Museum. popular series. council members from Altha and Blountstown, The boat, an authentic reproduction steam The second crew also along with the Blountstown City Manager and powered vessel, was built in 1983 and will offer filmed in Hosford dur- Assistant Manager gathered in the Heritage Room tours of the river with standing passenger service ing a “Town Hall” seg- at the Blountstown Library for the eighth Calhoun from Apalachicola to Chattahoochee and onto ment for the show, which County Super Council meeting Thursday night.
    [Show full text]
  • Marriage Equality and the Supreme Court a Guide to What Is at Stake in Upcoming Rulings
    Marriage Equality and the Supreme Court A Guide to What Is at Stake in Upcoming Rulings By Crosby Burns and Joshua Field June 10, 2013 This month the Supreme Court will deliver two historic rulings that will affect thou- sands of committed same-sex couples throughout the United States. InHollingsworth v. Perry, the Court will determine the constitutionality of California’s Proposition 8, which stripped same-sex couples in California of their right to marriage in 2008.1 Approximately 109,000 same-sex couples lost the freedom to marry in California that year.2 In United States v. Windsor, the Court will rule on the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, a federal law passed in 1996 that defines marriage as the union between a man and a woman for the purposes of more than 1,000 federal laws and programs.3 DOMA implicates everything from veterans’ benefits to immigra- tion to federal estate taxes, and it unfairly discriminates against legally married same-sex couples by denying them federal benefits and protections currently enjoyed by oppo- site-sex couples.4 In 2003 the Supreme Court affirmed the civil rights of gay and lesbian Americans in the landmark case Lawrence v. Texas by invalidating state antisodomy laws that prohibited consensual sex between people of the same gender.5 Ten years later the Supreme Court is poised to deliver two similarly monumental rulings that could have sweeping implica- tions for gay and lesbian couples in the United States. The Supreme Court has consistently and repeatedly affirmed that marriage
    [Show full text]
  • The Gay Marriage Backlash and Its Spillover Effects: Lessons from a (Slightly) Blue State
    Tulsa Law Review Volume 40 Issue 3 The Legislative Backlash to Advances in Rights for Same-Sex Couples Spring 2005 The Gay Marriage Backlash and Its Spillover Effects: Lessons from a (Slightly) Blue State John G. Culhane Stacey L. Sobel Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.utulsa.edu/tlr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation John G. Culhane, & Stacey L. Sobel, The Gay Marriage Backlash and Its Spillover Effects: Lessons from a (Slightly) Blue State, 40 Tulsa L. Rev. 443 (2013). Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.utulsa.edu/tlr/vol40/iss3/4 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by TU Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Tulsa Law Review by an authorized editor of TU Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Culhane and Sobel: The Gay Marriage Backlash and Its Spillover Effects: Lessons from THE GAY MARRIAGE BACKLASH AND ITS SPILLOVER EFFECTS: LESSONS FROM A (SLIGHTLY) "BLUE STATE" John G. Culhane* and Stacey L. Sobel** I. INTRODUCTION Backlash, indeed! The stories streaming in from across the country can scarcely be believed. In Alabama, a legislator introduced a bill that would have banished any mention of homosexuality from all public libraries-even at the university level.' In Virginia, the legislature's enthusiasm for joining the chorus of states that have amended their constitutions to ban gay marriage was eclipsed by a legislator's suggestion that the state's license plates be pressed into service as political slogans, and made to read: "Traditional Marriage.
    [Show full text]
  • Timeline of Same-Sex Marriage Laws – Student Handout
    Timeline of Same-Sex Marriage Laws – Student Handout 1969 – Police enter the Stonewall Inn in Greenwich Village, New York City, on a routine raid aimed at arresting gay patrons and encounter violent resistance from the gay community. The event, known as the Stonewall riots, marks the beginning of the modern gay rights movement. 1970 – Jack Baker and Michael McConnell become the first same-sex couple to apply for a marriage license in Minneapolis, Minnesota. Their application is rejected and they lose their appeal. 1973 – Maryland becomes the first state to ban same-sex marriage. 1996 – President Bill Clinton signs the Defense of Marriage Act into law. DOMA says that neither the federal government nor states have to recognize same-sex marriages that were performed in another state, cutting off same-sex couples’ access to marriage benefits in many states. 2000 – Vermont becomes the first state to legalize civil unions between same-sex partners. 2001 – The Netherlands becomes the first country to legalize same-sex marriage. 2003 – The Federal Marriage Amendment is introduced to the House of Representatives. The amendment would add language to the Constitution stating that marriage should only occur between a man and a woman. 2004-2006 – 23 states ban same-sex marriage. 2008 – California bans same-sex marriage by popular vote on Proposition 8, a measure on the state ballot. The following year, the California state Supreme Court upholds that decision. 2011 – President Barack Obama tells the Department of Justice to stop defending DOMA in court, stating that it is unconstitutional. 2012 –Obama publicly states his support for same-sex marriage.
    [Show full text]
  • August 23, 2013
    Vol. 71, No. 33 Aug. 23, 2013 Hammack Ready, aim ... Soldiers from Battery A, 2nd Battalion, 77th Field Artillery Regiment, 4th Infantry Brigade Combat Team, 4th Infantry Division, adjust the tube on an M777 howitzer, Aug. 14. During its validation addresses phase, the team learned to efficiently and safely PCMS issues fire the M777. See story pages 10-11. By Andrea Stone Mountaineer staff Katherine Hammack, assistant secretary of the Army for installations, energy and environment, topped off a three-day visit to Fort Carson by attending a naturalization ceremony at the Freedom Performing Arts Center, Aug. 15. After the ceremony, Hammack discussed the challenges Fort Carson faces at the Piñon Canyon Maneuver Site. On Aug. 13, she met with representatives of the Las Animas County com- munity where PCMS is located to discuss issues related to the site. The Army was granted authority in 2007 to expand PCMS, but never acted on that authority. “We have never budgeted the funds, and we have never followed through on expansion because, as time went by, and with the pace of deployments and fighting the fight, we did not use Piñon Canyon as much as we would have if everyone was stationed at home,” Hammack said. With the reduced pace of deployments and the reduction in forces, there may not be a need for expansion. “Now that everybody’s coming home, we’re going to take a look and see if (there’s) any need to expand and, frankly, with the Army getting smaller, there’s a good chance we will not need to expand,” she said.
    [Show full text]
  • An Unfulfilled Promise: Lesbian and Gay Inequality Under American Law a National and State-By-State Snapshot
    An Unfulfilled Promise: Lesbian and Gay Inequality Under American Law A National and State-by-State Snapshot As of July 2011, the main outstanding federal policy adopted by Congress concerning lesbian and gay Americans discriminates explicitly. It is the so-called “Defense of Marriage Act” (which ignores same-sex couples’ marriages for federal law purposes and purports to allow states to do the same). Although the first gay civil rights bill was introduced in Congress more than 35 years ago, there remains no explicit federal statutory protection against sexual orientation discrimination.1 Support has grown for the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, which would forbid sexual orientation and gender identity discrimination in employment; the bill was heard in committee in the prior Congress, but there is no timetable for action in this Congress.2 Other bills to reduce federal discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Americans would allow an employee to take unpaid leave to care for an ill domestic partner as for a heterosexual spouse,3 include a domestic partner in COBRA’s requirement of temporary extension of health insurance for family members at the end of one’s employment,4 permit Americans to immigrate a foreign spouse or partner,5 and repeal the federal DOMA.6 Like ENDA, none of these has a timetable for action in this Congress. Constitutional Constitutional Statute or Statute Bars Statute Bars Limited Broad Status Marriage for State Amendment, Amendment Case Law Antigay Antigay Public Status for for Same-Sex Same-Sex
    [Show full text]
  • Why the Religious Right Can't Have Its (Straight Wedding) Cake and Eat It Too: Breaking the Preservation-Through-Transformation Dynamic in Masterpiece Cakeshop V
    Minnesota Journal of Law & Inequality Volume 36 Issue 1 Article 3 January 2018 Why the Religious Right Can't Have Its (Straight Wedding) Cake and Eat It Too: Breaking the Preservation-Through-Transformation Dynamic in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission Kyle C. Velte Part of the Civil Rights and Discrimination Commons, Law and Gender Commons, and the Supreme Court of the United States Commons Follow this and additional works at: https://lawandinequality.org/ Recommended Citation Kyle C. Velte, Why the Religious Right Can't Have Its (Straight Wedding) Cake and Eat It Too: Breaking the Preservation-Through-Transformation Dynamic in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, 36(1) LAW & INEQ. (2018). Available at: https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/lawineq/vol36/iss1/3 Minnesota Journal of Law & Inequality is published by the University of Minnesota Libraries Publishing. 67 Why the Religious Right Can’t Have Its (Straight Wedding) Cake and Eat It Too: Breaking the Preservation-Through- Transformation Dynamic in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission Kyle C. Velte† Introduction In the 2017 term, the U.S. Supreme Court will consider the most significant LGBT-rights case since its 2015 marriage equality decision:1 Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission.2 The case presents A question—what I call the Antidiscrimination Question3—that has been percolating through lower courts for nearly a decade: may small business owners, such as photographers, bakers, and florists, be exempt from state antidiscrimination laws based on their religious beliefs about same- sex marriage?4 The Religious Right5 has been squarely behind this † Visiting Assistant Professor, Texas Tech University School of Law.
    [Show full text]
  • Same-Sex Marriage and Backlash
    MWP – 2016/04 Max Weber Programme Same-Sex Marriage and Backlash: Constitutionalism through the Lens of Consensus and Conflict AuthorReva B. Author Siegel and Author Author European University Institute Max Weber Programme Same-Sex Marriage and Backlash: Constitutionalism through the Lens of Consensus and Conflict Reva B. Siegel Max Weber Lecture No. 2016/04 This text may be downloaded for personal research purposes only. Any additional reproduction for other purposes, whether in hard copy or electronically, requires the consent of the author(s), editor(s). If cited or quoted, reference should be made to the full name of the author(s), editor(s), the title, the working paper or other series, the year, and the publisher. ISSN 1830-7736 © Reva B. Siegel, 2016 Printed in Italy European University Institute Badia Fiesolana I – 50014 San Domenico di Fiesole (FI) Italy www.eui.eu cadmus.eui.eu Abstract In the decades before the United States Supreme Court recognized the right of same-sex couples to marry in Obergefell v. Hodges, Americans disdained, denounced, and debated same-sex marriage. When state courts recognized the right of same-sex couples to marry, opponents passed laws and state constitutional amendments that defined marriage as the union of a man and a woman. This fierce conflict provoked argument about the capacity of courts to defend minority rights. Critics argued that judicial judgments shutting down politics were counterproductive and provoked a backlash that exacerbated political polarization. Conversation about the backlash ranged widely from academics and advocates to judges. These “realist” accounts of judicial review depicted courts as majoritarian institutions whose authority is tied to public consensus.
    [Show full text]
  • Why the Defense of Marriage Act Is Unfaithful to the Constitution Jon-Peter Kelly
    Cornell Journal of Law and Public Policy Volume 7 Article 10 Issue 1 Fall 1997 Act of Infidelity: Why the Defense of Marriage Act Is Unfaithful to the Constitution Jon-Peter Kelly Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/cjlpp Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Kelly, Jon-Peter (1997) "Act of Infidelity: Why the Defense of Marriage Act Is Unfaithful to the Constitution," Cornell Journal of Law and Public Policy: Vol. 7: Iss. 1, Article 10. Available at: http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/cjlpp/vol7/iss1/10 This Note is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at Scholarship@Cornell Law: A Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Cornell Journal of Law and Public Policy by an authorized administrator of Scholarship@Cornell Law: A Digital Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. ACT OF INFIDELITY: WHY THE DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE ACT IS UNFAITHFUL TO THE CONSTITUTION Monolithic control of the value transmission system is "a hallmark of totalitarianism .... ",1 INTRODUCTION In Romer v. Evans,2 the Supreme Court held invalid a Colorado state constitutional amendment which prohibited government action or policies designed to protect homosexuals from discrimination. This deci- sion struck such a powerful blow for the cause of gay and lesbian3 rights that the opinion was hailed by some as "without doubt the most impor- tant and symbolically momentous decision of the 1995-96 term." 4 In truth, however, Romer did not even prove to be the year's "most impor- tant and symbolically momentous" judicial ruling from the perspective of gay and lesbian advocacy, much less from a more general perspective.
    [Show full text]
  • Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Defendant's Motion To
    UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS ) NANCY GILL & MARCELLE LETOURNEAU, ) et al. ) Plaintiffs, ) No. 1:09-cv-10309 JLT ) v. ) ) ) OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT, ) et al. ) Defendants. ) MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS AND IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT GAY & LESBIAN ADVOCATES & DEFENDERS FOLEY HOAG LLP Gary D. Buseck Claire Laporte Mary L. Bonauto Vickie L. Henry Nima R. Eshghi Matthew Miller Janson Wu Amy Senier Samuel P. Bickett Seaport World Trade Center West 30 Winter Street, Suite 800 155 Seaport Blvd. Boston, MA 02108 Boston, MA 02210 Telephone (617) 426-1350 Telephone (617) 832-1000 Facsimile (617) 426-3594 Facsimile (617) 832-7000 Attorneys for Plaintiffs Attorneys for Plaintiffs JENNER & BLOCK LLP SULLIVAN & WORCESTER LLP Paul M. Smith David J. Nagle Luke C. Platzer Richard L. Jones Daniel I. Weiner One Post Office Square Anna M. Baldwin Boston, MA 02109 1099 New York Ave, NW, Suite 900 Telephone (617) 338-2873 Washington, DC 20001 Facsimile (617) 338-2880 Telephone (202) 639-6060 Attorneys for Plaintiffs Mary Ritchie, Kathleen Facsimile (202) 661-4948 Bush, Melba Abreu, Beatrice Hernandez, Attorneys for Plaintiffs Marlin Nabors, Jonathan Knight, Mary Bowe- Shulman, and Dorene Bowe-Shulman TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .........................................................................................................iii INTRODUCTION .........................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Thoughts on Lawrence V. Texas Arthur S
    digitalcommons.nyls.edu Faculty Scholarship Articles & Chapters 2004 Thoughts on Lawrence v. Texas Arthur S. Leonard New York Law School Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.nyls.edu/fac_articles_chapters Recommended Citation 11 Widener L. Rev. 171 (2004-2005) This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at DigitalCommons@NYLS. It has been accepted for inclusion in Articles & Chapters by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@NYLS. WIDENER LAW REVIEW Volume 11 2005 Issue 2 THOUGHTS ON LAWRENCE v. TEXAS ARTHUR S. LEONARD* The Supreme Court's June 26, 2003, decision in Lawrence v. Texas may change everything concerning gay rights and American law, or it may change very little. One way of seeing it is that by eliminating laws against consensual, private acts of sodomy by adults, the decision removes the stigma of criminality from gay sex, opening up the possibility that lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals can attain full and equal rights of citizenship in this country.2 Another way of seeing it is that by writing an opinion for the Supreme Court that eschews much of the normal vocabulary of due process analysis, and by skirting the equal protection issue raised by the Texas statute,3 Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, Jr., has given us a narrowly-focused opinion that may do away with archaic sodomy laws but is not particularly helpful in addressing the rest of the gay rights agenda.4 Of course, the ultimate impact may fall somewhere between these two poles. As an optimist, I like to think that the former is the case, and that Lawrence v.
    [Show full text]